CZ Announces the P-10 C, Striker-Fired Pistol

The Military Arms Channel got a sneak peek at CZ’s new polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol, the P-10 C. CZ’s tagline is “Improving on Perfection.” Sounds like a tall order, but we’re looking forward to finding out for ourselves as this completely ambidextrous pistol arrives for TTAG testing tomorrow. What follows is from CZ’s website:

Many years in the making, we’re pleased to announce the latest addition to the CZ line of handguns — the P-10 C. Much more than just our take on the striker-fired pistol, the P-10 is decidedly CZ, from the way it feels to the way it shoots. Check out Tim from the Military Arms Channel as he puts it through its paces [above].

First order of business, ergonomics. Anyone who’s picked up a CZ 75 for the first time gets it — it just has to feel right in the hand. With the CZ grip angle, the P-10 avoids that ‘brick-in-the-hand’ feeling that has plagued many in the striker-fired genre, allowing it to point naturally. A mild palm swell, deep beavertail and three interchangeable backstraps make the P-10 fit a wide variety of hands as if it were built for them. Because it was.

Next up, trigger. So many striker-fired pistols do many things right, falling short when it comes time to pull the trigger. Designed to minimize creep and stacking, the P-10’s trigger breaks at a clean 4-4.5 lbs and rebounds with a short, positive reset, meaning single shots can be meticulously placed while follow-ups are effortless.

Built to withstand the rigors of military use, its fiber-reinforced polymer frame and hardy nitride finish are made for the daily grind. A generous trigger guard allows use with gloved hands while being undercut to allow as high a grip as possible, and a set of metal tactical 3-dot sights allow for one-handed manipulation of the slide on a belt.

Like all CZ pistols, the P-10 is built with our legendary cold hammer forged barrel. The ‘C’ in the name indicates that it is compact in both frame and slide size, and magazines are of the same family as the hammer-fired P-07, meaning the P-10 C holds 15+1 in 9mm in a flush-fitting mag with extended bases allowing 17+1.Take-down of the P-10 will be familiar to most fans of striker-fired guns, and even more pleasing will be holster compatibility with some of the most common guns on the market.

It may have taken a while to come to market, but we feel the wait has been worth it. With CZ reliability, engineered ergonomics and a bevy of features both familiar and new, the P-10 is the complete package.

To download the P-10 C desktop background, click the picture below:

Looks like CZ will be releasing the P-10 C in Flat Dark Earth, in .40 S&W, and in a suppressor-ready version, too:

66 Responses to CZ Announces the P-10 C, Striker-Fired Pistol

Smart. Mags are widely available and have been for a while, and every holster maker in the country already makes a holster for it. CZ may be late to the game, but they put some thought into it. Very smart.

Hey Pete, what are you basing that on? As far as I can tell — and I’ll physically verify tonight when I’m at my FFL as i know they have P-07s and P-09s in stock — the mags are fully compatible. CZ-USA’s new product catalog even says:

The ‘C’ in the name indicates that it is compact in both frame and slide size, and magazines are shared with the hammer-fired P-07, meaning the P-10 C holds 15+1 in 9mm in a flush-fitting mag with extended bases allowing 17+1.

still slide in frame design. solid.
will there be a 2010?
if i go plastic it will be used p07. i want the hammer. and the ugly.
way too nice that they share mags.
now, where’s that half rami single stack?

They needed this for sales, obviously, but can someone tell me now what’s so wonderful about the Glock fire control group to begin with?

Yes, I know it was something new and different (no need to mention the VP70Z again) and took the market by storm and hasn’t let go ever since, but what, really, is so wonderful about it?

I still put my trust in hammer fired pistols with manual safeties. Why? because they give you more control and tend to have far better triggers. This new gun adds nothing to what CZ already has. Same with HK and their VP line. S&W did away with their hammer fired semi-autos, except for uber-expensive 1911s. Same with Ruger. The list goes on.

Striker fired guns are cheaper. You have to give them that. That’s all it is, along with everybody wanting to join Glock’s club because that’s what their customers supposedly want. I guess that’s reason enough.

With the exception of HK’s LEM hammer-fired setup and dedicated SA designs (1911, HP, etc), every hammer-fired pistol I’ve ever handled had a longer and heavier trigger than the average striker-fired design. Some are quite smooth, such as the nicer Sigs, but overall heavier in DA fire. Even in SA fire, they’re generally just on par with striker-fired length and weight.

And that’s the glaring discriminator: hammer-fired pistols are generally DA/SA, and I can’t stomach different trigger pulls between shots, especially when that first round I fire in a real world emergency is bound to be the most important shot of my life. Striker-fired designs are supremely consistent; even in instances where they’re not as smooth as a good hammer-fired setup, I’ll take the consistency over smooth-ness any day.

With the recent push for manufacturers to produce a decent striker-fired pull weight and short reset (PPQ, VP9, LC9s, etc), the biggest advantage a DA/SA setup had has diminished.

With the LEM setup, offering a DA second strike capability, it’s the best of both worlds: consistent pull until something bad happens (light primer strike), then the ability to just pull again and give it another try before clearing the round.

OR you can learn how to shoot a double action properly and really start hitting. Striker only guys generally cannot shoot well (all those left shooting Glocks, right?). It can be done but I don’t get the feel that’s you.

It’s not as hard as you make it sound, and you can either learn to shoot riding the safety or replace the safeties with thin ones that cannot be activated unintentionally… or you could buy a decocker model.

Many of us feel that way. My favorite handguns are a CZ 75 Shadow, a P-01, and a 75 from before the ‘B’ (it’s so old it says Czechoslovakia on the slide).
But lots of people like striker fired guns. So why not give these people a chance to experience the CZ awesomeness that we hammer guys get?
I’m looking forward to a full size model (I’m guessing the C is for compact) for USPSA production and IDPA SSP competition and a single stack sub compact for a tiny carry gun.

Explicit safeties are deadly. People train and train and then fail to disengage when it counts. Face it, you are not a superman. It can happen to you too.

I think I’d like something like LEM in USP, but in a smaller, single stack gun like 45 Shield. Well, SiG makes P290RS, but the travel of that trigger is longer than some of my revolvers. And the P250 is no more (also it was nowhere near LEM, frankly). But I guess CZ is not the company to provide me with one of these.

Ambi everything, G19 size and holsters, nicer trigger, CZ grip angle, and FDE. Looks like a winner. If I didn’t already have a G19 that I love, I’d be interested. Sucks it doesn’t have the slide in frame rails like the others but it should make the slide easier to manipulate.

In 9mm I am exclusively Glock for striker-fire, and CZ for hammer guns (set up SAO w/manual safety, much like my 45acp 1911’s).
I am confident that CZ will execute this well, but I don’t see this changing anything for me.
Glocks are just too proven for me, plus the availability of parts, familiarity of inside & outside, handling experience, knowing how to work on the gun, triggers, etc. Plus have the 26, 19, 17, 34 family uniformity is just too convenient.
Nothing I have seen can pull me away from Glock just yet, this CZ, VP9, etc. just aren’t enough different or better to make a move.

My only gripe is why did they throw out the inverted slide rail arrangement? Thats a big part of what gives a CZ pistol its feel, this doesnt seem like a striker fired CZ but a Czech made Glock 19. I dont know how well its gonna be able to stand out in light of that.

I suspect that inverted slide is just harder to do with a polymer frame, since that requires steel inserts to ride on. Having the more conventional arrangement was likely necessary to keep the gun slim.

I know. You can’t have a steel slide run on polymer directly, it’ll wear it out.

My point is that the shape of the inserts that’d be required for slide-inside-frame arrangement would make for a thicker gun (actually, come to think of it, that should be the case in general with that arrangement – there’s limited ability to make the slide thinner, as it would reduce its mass, and you need enough of that for it to cycle reliably). And if they’re specifically going for concealed carry, even 1mm matters in terms of how well it prints, and how comfy it is to carry IWB or in a pocket.

Had high hopes for this gun,but I am disappointed. I got another 15 round polymer striker gun instead. If the slide was inside the frame and striker fired I would be happier. I love my cz guns but this is just another same old same old. The gun will do well but it’s just not a true cz to me. Like the vp9 is not a true hk to me because my hk guns are hammer fired. I remember cz putting out a picture on their Facebook page of the p07 with the saying”got the hammer life”. But I guess it’s good business to follow the heard. I don’t hate striker guns,just prefer hammer guns.

Why are CZ mags soooooo expensive? I found a P-09, brand new for $399. The mags though, are almost $50 a piece. That is the only thing that kept me from picking it up. What is the deal? H&K is just as bad.

What would have really been interesting would be if they’d made an all-metal, striker-fired derivative of the CZ-75 and CZ-75 compact. I’m no mechanical engineer, so I have difficulty understanding why striker-fired guns have to be polymer.

Naturally this happens right after I bought a Canik TP9SF.
I was surprised to see it has the Glock-style ‘frame outside rails’ design instead of the normal CZ ‘frame inside rails’, if that makes any sense.

CZ makes decent guns, so this will be a worthy Glock clone, like the HS2000/XD lineup. However its still just a Glock clone, and why bother with copies when you can get the original flavor of Perfection with an authentic Glock?

This has more in common with the norm in the plastic fantastic norm, as the internal slide rail isn’t carried over (as it is with the P-07), but as it is manufactured by CZ, I am still interested. I’m sure it will feel natural in the hand, as that is the first thing I noticed when I picked up a CZ pistol for the first time.

1. Another unsafe copy of the unsafe Glock. No manual safety which is the same as carrying around a revolver with the hammer cocked back. If one wants to find out just how unsafe this design is try carrying one unloaded around but cocked in ones pocket or in the waist band without holster and then see how long it takes for the guns trigger to be accidentally tripped off by snagging or pressure against it. It will wake up the unbelievers very quickly as to how unsafe this style of gun really is. Even trying to load or unload the gun can be hazardous as if you get your hands anywhere near the trigger you can set it off while struggling to load or unload the gun in a high pressure situation. With a manual safety that can be left in the “on position” it makes this procedure light years more safe but neither gun has such a safety which by the way are available for the Glock in the form of the after market Cominelle safety system. It can not only save your life, it will save your life someday if it is installed. Hopefully some day it will be available for all the other idiotic Glock copies or someday be mandatory.

2. If its a pre-loaded striker fired weapon than it has an inferior ignition system like the Glock. Doubt my word then seat a high primer in an empty case and try and fire it off. It will not. Then try this with a hammer fired gun, it will.

3. Unsafe takedown system. They copied the Glock and when you attempt to take off the slide the slide must be forward and then you pull the trigger. Forget just one time to check the chamber and you shoot yourself or someone else. This does not happen with a gun which you have to lock the slide back to take it down. Now think about this.

4. If the bottom of the slide has an open firing pin channel like the Glock then it will let in excess dirt and lubricant, result is a misfire in extremely cold weather or if the gun is dirty or both.

5. No visible or felt loaded chamber indicator, (no the extractor sticking out does not get it)

6. No way to safely de-cock the gun, you must take the live round out of the chamber. Thumbs down on that one too.

7. If this gun has an opening in the bottom of the grip like the Glock it will let in clouds of dust that will find its way into the guns mechanism.

8. No magazine safety which again has been proven to save countless lives especially children. The Browning High Power had a magazine safety 81 years ago so no this is not a Commie conspiracy.

9. Ditto for no grip safety either.

If U.S. guns fell under the Consumer Protection Laws the CZ gun like the Glock would never have been allowed on the gun market. Glock was forced to put a manual safety on its guns when it shipped them to some foreign countries but has never to my knowledge made it available to the public or to police departments either.

The arguments over glock safety have been rehashed over and over since Glock hit the market, but here we go again.

1) Guns don’t belong in pockets, unless they’re in pocket holsters. Also, If you’re loading or unloading with your finger on or near the trigger, you need training in basic firearms handling. Manual safeties are not failsafe, and not a substitute for proper handling and holstering.

2) Ok, maybe you should inspect your rounds before you load them, especially in a defensive weapon. I’ve never had an FTF in thousands of rounds through various Glocks.

3) Ok, I thought about it, as you suggested. If you begin to take down a weapon that has one in the chamber, you are already in bad shape. I’m not saying that this kind of mistake doesn’t happen, but if you’re not religious about checking multiple times before takedown, you probably need to find a new hobby. One that won’t get you or someone else killed by your negligence.

4) Right, because if there’s one thing we know about Glocks, it’s that they misfire from being dirty. Oh wait, nevermind. They go bang as close to 100% of the time as any pistol you can find. That’s why some people who don’t even like them that much carry them for defensive use.

5) I have never used any loaded chamber indicator on any weapon, and never will. I already know it’s loaded. Until I’ve visually and physically inspected for empty. Often 2 or 3 times (see # 3).

6) I agree, I hate having a glock’s hammer locked back and no way to disengage… oh wait, there isn’t a hammer. The glock doesn’t need to be decocked, period. That’s an advantage for Glock. You don’t take the round out of the chamber unless you’re firing it or emptying it. There is no reason not to carry with a round in the chamber.

7) Ummm, no. (Also, see #4).

8) The lives they saved are lives that were put in danger by negligent owners. If you’re process of emptying a weapon doesn’t include the slide locked back after dropping the mag, you need more training. Or a safer hobby. Maybe knitting?

9) Grip safeties are more likely to make a gun not fire when it really, really needs to fire than it is to keep a gun from firing when it shouldn’t be. And under what circumstances would someone be pulling a trigger of a pistol with a round in the chamber while not intending to fire?

Basically, your idea of safety is a device that provides some cover for negligent handling of weapons. It makes it less likely that the negligence will lead to tragedy. In doing so, the negligent owner never has to learn the right way to do things, because they can probably get away with it for a long while without incident. Is this a good thing? So to help the negligent owners, we need “consumer protection” devices to muck it all up for the responsible owners?

Glocks are less forgiving of bad habits and dumb ideas, no question. Some people might ask, “why would you not be handling the gun safely in the first place?” Others bring up “consumer protection”, to bring the full weight of government to protect us from ourselves… a line of reasoning that eventually leads to “we need gun laws because people can’t be trusted to own guns.”

You do not live in the “real” world but a fantasy world. You believe that you are incapable of ever making a human mistake which all humans make from time to time. You are part of the crowd that was against laws demanding people wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets, you were against child proof safety caps on medicine or back up safeties on law mowers or disconnect safeties when one falls off of or gets off of a lawn mower that is still running.

Lets face reality people can become distracted, be on ordinary over the counter cold medicine or have a drink or two at a party any of which will lead to a mistake being mad in handling a firearm. Safety devices work that is why they were invented to begin with.

Magazine safeties have saved countless lives when people attempt to unload a firearm. Children lives have been saved by such safeties as proven in many studies as once the magazine is removed by the owner a child cannot suddenly pick up the weapon and shoot himself or someone else even if there is a round in the chamber that was forgotten to be ejected . Let us again face reality, this happens thousands of times to gun owners and anyone who claims that it has never happened to him is an out an out liar to everyone but himself.

Loaded visible chamber indicators have saved countless lives because at a glance one can see if a weapon that was just lying around loaded is indeed loaded and ready to fire. Should you let a weapon lying around loaded and unattended where someone besides yourself may happen upon it? No, but people like you will argue till your blue in the face you should be allowed to do this even if you have small children in the house but in the same breath you are now telling me you do not need a loaded chamber indicator. Do you realize how illogical your statement was and is. You assume everyone is skilled in the knowledge and handling of firearms. Reality check is that there may be people living in the house or visiting that are not familiar with firearms and that many gun owners buy a gun and never even fire it and they often set it aside loaded and months or years and later forget it is loaded. Any one of these scenarios can lead to tragedy and a firearm that has safety devices can and has many times saved lives. Too late the arrogant people like yourself realize that a loved one would have been alive today if they had purchased a firearm than did indeed have some or all of these safety devices. Yes it can happen to you even though you will deny it to the grave which may be sooner than you think.

Your statements about grip safeties is pure nonsense. In a crisis situation the natural tendency is to grip the gun in an iron clad type grip which will deactivate it. Also a gun that is dropped that has a grip safety will not let the trigger travel backward and set off the gun if the trigger catches on something. The trigger safety on the Glock is an absolute joke and does not work ever as intended. The Glock has no grip safety and its single action type trigger pull is a disaster just waiting to happen when ones finger is deliberately or accidentally on the trigger or again if the gun is dropped the Glocks trigger safety will not prevent the gun from accidentally firing when dropped as anything snagging the trigger will set the gun off. This would not happen with a grip safety.

With guns that have manual safeties the finger can be on the trigger and the safety in the on position making it impossible to get excited and accidentally fire off the gun when you did not ever intend to shoot because you suddenly realized the shadow you saw in your house was actually that of a loved on who came home early one night. I have seen Police trained with Glocks and even though they were told to keep their finger off the trigger until ready to shoot many did not do this in a crisis situation as the “human survival instinct” kicks in and their finger automatically went for the trigger. I saw 2 Cops in New York running down the street, Glocks drawn and both had their fingers on the trigger. I ducked low into an open doorway and crouched down out of the line of accidental fire if they tripped or fell. THIS IS REAL GLOCK REALITY NOT YOUR FANTASY WORLD OF TRAINING THAT SUPPOSEDLY NEGATES THE DEADLY HASZARDS OF A TOTALLY IDIOTIC DESIGN.

Again your statements on a de-cocker show you are unfamiliar with better designed handguns. The Walther P99 has a de-cocker which changes it from a light single action pull to a heavy double action pull making an accidental discharge light years less likely to happen in crisis situation. Massad Ayoob stated that studies showed that guns with heavy double action pulls reduced accidental police shootings substantially as opposed to dangerous idiotic designs like the Glock.

As far as your so called expertise in firearms you must not do a lot of shooting as I have had FACTORY AMMO fail to fire from a variety of reason, one of them being a high primer. Guess what? Your Glock just got you killed in a gun fight. Now that’s real reality.

Your quotes about Glocks being reliable is again pure nonsense. Any machine can malfunction especially under extreme conditions such as a gun being left in a car overnight In extremely low temperatures. Couple this with a dirty gun and using a lube that is not made for extremely low temperature and guess what you have a Glock that does not fire because it operates on the “margin of reliability” in regards to its ignition system. The hammer fired gun has ignition energy to spare and plenty of it. With Hammer fired guns I have driven high primers right down into their pockets and the hammer gun still had enough energy to fire off the primer. The Glock in the same test barely made a dimple in the high primer and did not drive it down into the case. Again showing how weak the Glock ignition system really is.

The Glock was considered so dangerous by advanced civilized European counties that some of them did not allow the gun into the country unless Glock put a factory installed manual safety on the gun which Glock did do but Glock has to my knowledge never ever made the factory safety available to the public or even to U.S. police departments. This is an absolute outrage. With the Glock factory manual safety or the excellent Cominelli safety which does not void the Glock factory warranty you can leave the safety in the “on” position and safety either load or unload the weapon even if you accidentally snag the trigger on a object or get your finger on the trigger. But of course as you stated you are super human and totally incapable of ever making a mistake. Well the rest of the world is not in that category by any means and people make such mistakes every day, even people who have handled firearms for decades. I have seen this happen to them. But of course according to you such things never happen.

I agree people should always use a holster even if the gun is in a pocket but unlike you I live in and accept what is going on everyday in the “real world” not your “fantasy world”. People do indeed often prefer to carry a gun without a holster not only in the pocket but people who should know better even stuff a gun in the waist band without a holster. An Air Marshal shot himself with a Glock doing such a thing and last year a famous Black Athlete when dining in a restaurant in New York did the same thing and shot himself with the unsafe Glock pistol. I saw a video of an off duty police officer switch his Glock from the left pocket of his jacket to the right pocket of his jacket in an elevator standing right next to a lady also in the elevator. As expected the Glock went off when he snagged the trigger on something and it went off shooting himself and he could have killed the lady standing next to him. This would have been way less likely to happen with a double action auto with a manual safety in the “on” position. I will go out on a limb and say it is very unlikely that this accident would have happened with a more safely designed pistol. He was a trained Police Officer and now we should remember your former statement claiming training negates the idiotic unsafe Glock design.

I could quote chapter and verse from the paper “Gun Week” over the last decades of hundreds of needless accidental shooting because of the totally unsafe Glock design, many ending in the death of totally innocent people who were shot by people handling Glock pistols especially in regards to Police accidentally shooting innocent people at routine traffic stops. The Reality of History has shown that when Police were using the old fashioned double action revolver or auto pistols modified for double action only use that accidental shootings and deaths were reduced substantially. Many famous gun companies make such modified police double action only auto’s just for this reason. If the Glock was so safe this would have been unnecessary. Again proving your “fantasy theories” of training to be just that “pure fantasy” because it does not negate an idiotic unsafe design.

My own Glock has the Cominelli manual safety and now I can safely handle the gun without breaking into a cold sweat every time I pick it up or handle it. I am aware of how fast an accident can happen even to a person who has handled firearms for years and even decades. No one is immune from an accident except of course for “you”, according to your philosophy. You are perfect. You can never make a mistake. Famous last words.

You seem to know a lot about me and what I think. Which is odd, since you’ve never met me.

Not once did I say that I don’t make a mistake, or can’t make a mistake. I acknowledged that the Glock platform does indeed punish sloppy safety habits. I didn’t push a solution to this, other than suggest that it should NOT be through the power of the government, which you seem ever so eager to push. The government has a solution for gun safety, but you might not like it. Then again, you seem to be fond for government control, so perhaps you’re more willing to embrace the leftist dream of seizing guns, to eliminate any possibility of gun-related accidental deaths.

You need to slow down and breathe before you type. Otherwise you come off sounding unhinged.

For the record, I have never attempted to take a gun down after forgetting a round in the chamber. Not once. But that doesn’t mean I’m not human, or that I don’t believe it can’t happen to me. That’s why I check to the point of paranoia, and when that trigger pull comes to take down a glock, it’s pointed in a safe direction (after the last check).

Nobody is going to argue with you that a gun with a manual safety adds an extra, if imperfect margin of safety. So does not having a round in the chamber. So does leaving the gun unloaded with our government appointed trigger lock device in place (an idea you may love, because #moregovernment). So does locking every gun up unloaded. Unfortunately, as the margin for safety increases, the ability to use the weapon in a defensive situation drops. This may not matter if all you’ve got is a hunting rifle, and you have no plans to ever defend yourself. For everybody else, we have to find the medium that works- and train as if our lives depend on it, because they do. That’s the burden of taking up arms.

Owning a glock or any pistol like it, requires understanding of some very basic, but critically important things. First is that the gun won’t protect you from unsafe handling. But then again, so do 1911s, or any gun with a manual safety. If you don’t train with it consistently to take the gun off safe, you will not do so under stress. Range shooting does not encourage this practice- many don’t even allow drawing from the holster. I have seen a man die who had a gun with a manual safety- he was a clerk at a convenience store. 2 thugs walked into rob the store, and the clerk grabbed his pistol. He didn’t get a shot off. The video shows he would have, if he had taken the safety off. Instead, he pulled the trigger at least 3 times, maybe more, before he took one in the chest.

Grip safeties are fine when they work. What happens if you’re injured, and can’t get a grip that would deactivate the safety?

I don’t even know what to look for with loaded chamber indicators, even though I have guns so equipped. I don’t trust them, even if they can provably be shown to be 100% accurate. I trust what I have been taught and what I train- visually and physically inspecting the chamber.

Gun accidents (negligent discharges) an ink blot test. Some say they show the need more mechanical safeties or perhaps government betters deciding for us. Others would say they show the need for increased (and better) training and more vigilance in safe handling.

With people like CJ the dead body count or the maiming’s are never high enough unless it someday is themselves or their relatives, then the dim light bulb goes on and their extreme arrogance is realized. No amount of face saving rhetoric or official Glock Propaganda will erase the stark serious fact that handling or carrying a Glock is like walking around with a revolver with the hammer cocked back. No sane individual would do such a thing but what people cannot see they do not fear until of course they end up shooting themselves or someone else. There have been so many accidental police shootings of civilians and civilians shooting themselves with Glocks it would cover volumes.

Just last summer a young Mother that was shopping with her 2 year old son was shot in the head and killed when her young son reached into her purse and pulled out the gun and shot her. She had It in a holster and in her purse CJ just like you recommended but it was totally irrelevant. She had an unsafe firearm that was defectively designed and she is now dead because of it. No excuses CJ, no face saving CJ, admit it. She would be alive today with a gun that had a grip safety and a manual safety. No amount of lying will change this fact. Your are wrong CJ, You are 100 per cent wrong, but you are way to arrogant to ever admit it.

And of course your face saving excuse will be she should have had it on her person. Well once again you prove you do not live the real world at all. Many times due to hot weather or the clothing available at the moment makes it impossible to carry a gun on the person or at least the one you happen to own because of size and not everyone can afford different size guns for every occasion either. As you can see I am eliminating all of your pre-packaged face saving come backs to skirt the stark truth about the unsafe Glock design.

As far as your ranting about Government interference. You stated I did not know you when I made my previous statements about you and then in the next breath confirmed everything I stated about you. For your convenience you would rather see people killed or maimed because it might just inconvenience you to use a firearm that was designed with safety features that are all over 100 years old. And no this is not a Commie conspiracy as I am sure will be your next statement. Your big bad Government statements prove I was right on the money when I said it was people like you who would do away with every safety device passed in the last 50 years. You just proved it by your statements while denying I did not know you. It turned out I know you all to well.

You mentioned the clerk that forgot to take a safety off of his gun and was killed. It again runs counter to what you said about training being a panacea for everything. Under stress people often forget their training and tragedy results. When one compares the people killed because of the Glocks design as compared to people killed because they forgot to take off a safety the numbers fall overwhelmingly on the accidental shootings with Guns like the Glock. So as you can see your training statements are fantasy in the real world and the numbers of people killed would be way less without guns like the Glock that have no manual safety.

You ranting about far out bizarre instances that might get you killed because the gun had a grip safety when you were injured are less likely than being struck by lightening. And when you compare the real world and how much more likely you would be to be killed by a gun like the Glock it only shouts to the world about your paranoia against safety devices and your reluctance to be inconvenienced with their use.

If I were a betting man I would wager I would be a million times more likely to be killed by carrying a Glock and accidentally shooting myself compared to not being able to disengage a grip safety to fire off a gun because I was injured. Have you ever heard about just shooting with the other hand? If your hand was injured you would not be able anyway to shoot any gun with it, grip safety or no grip safety. And your paranoia about grip safeties not being disengaged is pure nonsense as on a 1911 you can disengage it with the tip of your little finger or even your tongue that is how light a push it actually takes but if you drop the gun the grip safety prevents it from going off. And a small child would not be able to get his hand completely around the grip to disengage it and still reach the trigger either. I mention this because a Chicago Policeman came home and while undressing threw his unsafe Glock down on the bed and his little 4 year old girl standing next to him snatched up the Glock and shot herself to death. Another tragic and totally unnecessary loss of human life, but no matter, it was not one of your relatives. Right!.

I once saw a picture of a Chimpanzee holding a Glock in his hand. That picture really said it all because you cannot blame a Chimpanzee for using one as he is not intelligent enough to know how dangerous a Glock is to handle. Which category do you fall into CJ.

This entire comment chain is embarassing and cringey. Stop straw-manning each other–it makes your arguments worthless because everyone can tell you two are just arguing for the sake of a false sense of superiority. You both have valid points–each person’s needs and preferences should be tailored to their circumstances. Guns are inherently dangerous, period. Safeties *can* help, but not in all situations. Heck, Israeli carry is safer than both of you two’s options but it’ll likely get you or someone else killed. We all have to compromise safety somewhere–danger is inherent to the tool.

Perhaps you didn’t read the posts. Cisco is the one that was flying off the handle on someone who mostly agrees with him. We all know that glocks provide fewer mechanical safeties, and require unfailing vigilance to avoid NDs. I pointed out some shortcomings in his analysis, and he kinda went off the rails.

I agree with you also- it’s based on the circumstances of the owner. I don’t know why this set cisco off. I don’t know why he felt the need to write a dissertation on how awful, evil, and unreliable (wait, what?) glocks are. If somebody here knows cisco, perhaps you should check on him.